Trump's supporters are trying to intimidate voters

[Underhill]

Her campaign seems built upon inflaming fears of Russia.
She has proof!
But it's secret proof.
It can't be divulged, lest the Russians learn more about hacking.
So we must take this proof on faith....as she did with Iraq's WMDs.

One thing Trump gets right is the need to negotiate with Russians, not fight with them.
If elected, can Hilda risk losing face by abandoning a hostile-to-Russia stance?
Or would the dangerous rancor continue?

But giving Russia the cold shoulder, reacting to their attacks... that is not WW3. The whole notion that she wants that is laughable.

There is evidence that Russia is behind these attacks. Just because most people don't understand it doesn't make it any less true.

 

[Underhill]

It's hard to call the accusation against Russia a lie.
It's possible that they're behind the hacks.
But if they had a smoking gun, they'd present it.
To claim that something only possibly true as inerrant objective fact might
be only fervent partisan fueled intellectual inadequacy than outright lying.

Now, I must rest after using so many big words.

That is the problem with cyber attacks. There is no smoking gun, only signatures, traces... stuff that wouldn't hold up in court and not going to 'prove' anything. But to say there is no evidence is a bit misleading too.

This is the nature of the beast. People who see this work all the time can have a pretty good idea who is behind it. But it's not like they leave fingerprints or a smoking gun in the literal sense.

 

[Revoltingest]

But giving Russia the cold shoulder, reacting to their attacks... that is not WW3. The whole notion that she wants that is laughable.

I see a less humor filled picture.......
Tensions between US & both PRC & Russia are increasing.
This poses great risk.
Did you know we almost went to all out war with the USSR in 1983 when
they erroneously (sensor problem) thought we launched an attack?
I find Hillary's more combative posture good reason to vote against her.

There is evidence that Russia is behind these attacks. Just because most people don't understand it doesn't make it any less true.

What is this evidence?
I can understand it if you speak slowly.

 

[Mindmaster]

I see a less humor filled picture.......
Tensions between US & both PRC & Russia are increasing.
This poses great risk.
Did you know we almost went to all out war with the USSR in 1983 when they thought we launched an attack?
I find Hillary's more combative posture good reason to vote against her.

What is this evidence?
I can understand it if you speak slowly.

I think the language Hillary uses gives away her hand, and while I don't see eye to eye with everything Trump says he's not rattling the sabre, he's offering the olive branch.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is the problem with cyber attacks. There is no smoking gun, only signatures, traces... stuff that wouldn't hold up in court and not going to 'prove' anything. But to say there is no evidence is a bit misleading too.

This is the nature of the beast. People who see this work all the time can have a pretty good idea who is behind it. But it's not like they leave fingerprints or a smoking gun in the literal sense.

In other words.....
The Russians did it because they might have.
And it's pure coincidence that an administration which
supports Hillary is the same regime blaming the Russians.

Would you like to buy some ocean front property in Revoltistan?
It's lovely this time of year!

 

[Underhill]

I see a less humor filled picture.......
Tensions between US & both PRC & Russia are increasing.
This poses great risk.
Did you know we almost went to all out war with the USSR in 1983 when they thought we launched an attack?
I find Hillary's more combative posture good reason to vote against her.

You would find her apple pie recipe problematic if you saw it in a cookbook.

What is this evidence?
I can understand it if you speak slowly.

I'm no expert on the subject but it's essentially like a bomb signature. You see enough of them you can tell by the structure and methodology where it came from. It's a relatively small community after all.

This is why it's hard to show proof. Someone can say that as an expert they see evidence but 99% of the population will have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think the language Hillary uses gives away her hand, and while I don't see eye to eye with everything Trump says he's not rattling the sabre, he's offering the olive branch.

Aye, there's a cromulent saying among go (wei chi) players....
Rich men don't pick fights.

What does it mean?
Americastan is rich, with interests & people covering the the globe.
If we pick a needless fight, we stand only to lose.
To risk a fight should be predicated upon great need & facing great loss.

 

[Revoltingest]

You would find her apple pie recipe problematic if you saw it in a cookbook.

Possibly.
I have very particular preferences when it comes
to pies, especially apple & blackberry pies.

I'm no expert on the subject but it's essentially like a bomb signature. You see enough of them you can tell by the structure and methodology where it came from. It's a relatively small community after all.
This is why it's hard to show proof. Someone can say that as an expert they see evidence but 99% of the population will have no idea what they are talking about.

1) The accusation is made by Hillary allies.
2) It serves her campaign interests.
3) You're admittedly no expert.
4) You present no evidence.
5) You only describe some characteristics of hypothetical evidence.

Based upon this, the evidence is overwhelming.
Okey dokey.

 

[Revoltingest]

Some states allow early voting.
Where's the evidence of voter intimidation?

 

[Underhill]

1) The accusation is made by Hillary allies.
2) It serves her campaign interests.
3) You're admittedly no expert.
4) You present no evidence.
5) You only describe some characteristics of hypothetical evidence.

Based upon this, the evidence is overwhelming.
Okey dokey.

Now you are just making stuff up. I never said overwhelming or even anything close to that.

I said evidence exist. I've heard interviews with the experts who do know. One being a person from the firm Crowdstrike, who analyzed the DNC's computers after repeated attacks. Fidelis and Mandiant (2 other large firms in the internet security field) have corroborated Crowdstrikes conclusion. There's much more. To claim there is no evidence, or that it is only coming from the administration is just plain wrong.

Perhaps you need to spend a bit of time educating yourself.

https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-know-russia-dnc-hack/

 

[Revoltingest]

Now you are just making stuff up. I never said overwhelming or even anything close to that.

Calm down.
I did not say you used that particular word.
But your certainty about Russian culpability gives that appearance.
If you're less sure then I thought, then I'd accept that.

I said evidence exist. I've heard interviews with the experts who do know. One being a person from the firm Crowdstrike, who analyzed the DNC's computers after repeated attacks. Fidelis and Mandiant (2 other large firms in the internet security field) have corroborated Crowdstrikes conclusion. There's much more. To claim there is no evidence, or that it is only coming from the administration is just plain wrong.
Perhaps you need to spend a bit of time educating yourself.
https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-know-russia-dnc-hack/

I've read that link before.
So perhaps I'm more edumacated than you imagine, eh.
The entire article has only speculation based upon patterns.
Did Russians do it?
Maybe.
But it is not fact.

 

[David1967]

"Trump said to watch your precints. I'm going to go, for sure... I'll look for... well, it's called racial profiling. Mexicans. Syrians. People who can't speak American..." "I'm going to go right up behind them. I'll do everything legally. I want to see if they are accountable. I'm not going to do anything illegal. I'm going to make them a bit nervous."

Earlier in the video his supporters also rally against the danger of dead voters voting against them.

Trump is a cancer. Anyone who believes any of the words that come out of this man's mouth needs to really evaluate how much they are deluding themselves. He is so transparently a lying piece of scum that it's not even funny.

Voter intimidation has no place in American politics no matter who is doing it. Hopefully this is a false story. We dont need another incident like we had before with the Crack Panthers marching around voting stations with clubs in their hands.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I don't think it's worth going to war

You've strained the gnat and swallowed the camel. Your capacity to swallow and then spew such large amounts of drivel concurrently is truly inspiring. Where does she say "war"??? You're extrapolating that any cyber, political, economic or military response is an act of war. It's not and it's a scare tactic to deceive people. Trump would be proud.

How do you know that most of the adults agree that Trump is a cancer?

Polls show this to be true. It's my opinion and my hope that November 8 will vindicate me. I can't wait for the electorate to tell Trump: "YOU'RE FIRED!"

He not only breathes under water, he walks upon it.

Dude, you're making me blush. I'm not walking on water: that's just my SUP. Unfortunately, it's going to be a while before I get back on. I've injured my Achilles tendon and have to take it easy for the next month. I'm stuck with only diving, and then only in 2ft or less seas.

It's hard to call the accusation against Russia a lie.

The truth is like that.

 

[pondsbb]

You keep trying to bang this drum without any substantiation except your delusions.

She said in debates she would set up no fly over Syria. Guess what ..Russia already has. Anything we do there will start war with Russia. Russia has called everyone studying overseas home and are preparing for war as we type.

 

[Underhill]

Calm down.
I did not say you used that particular word.
But your certainty about Russian culpability gives that appearance.
If you're less sure then I thought, then I'd accept that.

I've read that link before.
So perhaps I'm more edumacated than you imagine, eh.
The entire article has only speculation based upon patterns.
Did Russians do it?
Maybe.
But it is not fact.

So you are more edumacated than the experts now?

Am I 100% sure? How the hell would I know. But if you can't believe multiple experts from multiple companies, as well as a renown British professor.... well I suppose you could take Donalds word for it...

 

[Revoltingest]

So you are more edumacated than the experts now?

Perhaps more than some, but less than others.
But education isn't the governing feature here.
It's about leaping from speculation to belief without evidence.
Analogy time.....
Many priests & rabbis know more about religion than I do.
But this make them any more correct in what they say about their god?
No, because they've no real evidence.

Am I 100% sure? How the hell would I know. But if you can't believe multiple experts from multiple companies, as well as a renown British professor.... well I suppose you could take Donalds word for it...

Multiple experts proclaimed WMDs in Iraq, which was used as a pretext for invasion.
We saw no evidence other than patterns which were supposed to prove the claim.
But the administration then had a vested interest in this interpretation.
How'd that turn out?
And the current one has a vested interest in seeing Hillary (who exploits fear of Russia) win.
This explains how so much certainty has infected the leftish media, eg, NPR.
It would be wise to recognize this as a likely political campaign ploy.
But the downside is poorer relations with a belligerent Russia.
And Putin is using this discord to his own political advantage.
I see this unstable relationship as a great danger, one which Trump is better equipped to handle.

 

[Scuba Pete]

So you are more edumacated than the experts now?

The man is a legend in his own mind: a veritable FIGJAM.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Multiple experts proclaimed WMDs in Iraq,

Actually, that's false. As it turned out, the only evidence for WMDs were naught but allusions made by Shrub..

 

[Underhill]

Perhaps more than some, but less than others.
But education isn't the governing feature here.
It's about leaping from speculation to belief without evidence.
Analogy time.....
Many priests & rabbis know more about religion than I do.
But this make them any more correct in what they say about their god?
No, because they've no real evidence.

Multiple experts proclaimed WMDs in Iraq, which was used as a pretext for invasion.
We saw no evidence other than patterns which were supposed to prove the claim.
But the administration then had a vested interest in this interpretation.
How'd that turn out?
And the current one has a vested interest in seeing Hillary (who exploits fear of Russia) win.
This explains how so much certainty has infected the leftish media, eg, NPR.
It would be wise to recognize this as a likely political campaign ploy.
But the downside is poorer relations with a belligerent Russia.
And Putin is using this discord to his own political advantage.
I see this unstable relationship as a great danger, one which Trump is better equipped to handle.

The difference is a simple one. The multiple experts in the Iraq fiasco consisted of intelligence analyst in 5 countries all reading separate intelligence reports from their source in Iraq. Then used each other as corroborating sources.

But after the fact it was revealed that they all were talking to the same guy.

This is 3 different companies, looking at multiple hacks, and an entirely different guy, a British professor, looking at a separate data set in Germany, and drawing the same conclusion.

If you can't see the difference I don't know what to say.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, that's false. As it turned out, the only evidence for WMDs were naught but allusions made by Shrub..

Perhaps you were young then, & didn't read the news.
There was much in the media about evidence for the WMDs,
eg, special tubing purchased & sneaked into the country for
nuclear work.